Talk:European badger

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Some of the information seems wrong and their is this tone that makes european badgers out to be lovable little fellows and only a "rogue" ones would ever dare go after lifestock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.26.214 (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Untitled[edit]

is it really not known that european bagers dig up wasps nests? I've got a bumblebee nest in my garden that has clearly been extensively excavated by a mammal. I doubt foxes, it seems that a badger is the more likely culprit.

TB in cattle[edit]

As an aside: Although selective breeding has produced cows with very high milk yields, it has been at the expense of a 'strong constitution'. In other words modern cow would find survival difficult without veterinary intervention. They would not survive in the wild. Could it be for this reason that TB has been on the increase in cattle? That their immune systems are less fit, suggests that they are more likely to contract it from each other. Cows are often close together with other cows and since TB human form is not that easy to catch without close contact -maybe its the same for cows. --Aspro 20:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recently the BBC has reported that the major badger culling in ireland has failed to halt the spread of TB in cattle. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6653691.stm).I think there needs to be more on whether TB is infact transmitted regulary from badgers to cattle. Fitz05 12:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers[edit]

If badgers die at the rate of 50,000 a year in Britain, coupled with the population statistic there would be no badgers in just six years! Something seems fishy. (unsigned comment from User:71.112.25.139)

I agree. I spent some time sourcing some parts of the article in August, but this is one I didn't find a quote for. It would be very helpful if someone comes up with a source for this. We also have the figure The results of the first national badger survey published in 1990 estimated that 9,000 badgers were killed each year by badger digging. but no context for this survey. Who ran it, has badger digging continued at this rate, etc. --Telsa (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
if there are 300K badgers in the uk, the population is stable and the mean life is 3 years then it follows that arround 100K badgers must die each year and arround 100K must be born.
I'd like to see a source for that average 3 years figure though, i strongly suspect it excludes infant death. Plugwash 23:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Range map is incorrect[edit]

As the article notes, this species is common in Britain and Ireland, but this is not shown in the range map.

Brushes???[edit]

Aren't Badger hair brushes made from the eurasian Badger? Are they farmed? Are they trapped legally? Do they shave them and let them go? Opcnup 04:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Badger hair for brushes mostly comes from farmed badgers in China, it says in the Swedish & German wikiarticles on badgers.[Unsigned comment by User:136.8.150.6 11:43, 27 March 2008]
This is mostly historical; the French use the same word for badger and shaving brush!137.205.100.231 (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

I am confused about why this article has had its name changed from Eurasian Badger to European Badger – especially as it has been done without discussion, and in the face of reversions. Please can we now talk about it before any further reverts.

What is the source for "European badger" as the English name? The name is widely used in Europe, but I doubt if would be a popular one in the Far East, where the same species occurs. If there is a source for the name, I suggest that it is obviously and plainly wrong, and the name should be changed back to "Eurasian badger". Incidentally, the same applies to the Eurasian otter, which has also been changed recently in the face of previous discussion. Richard New Forest (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion below, and at User talk:Tombstone#Eurasian badger, Eurasian otter. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC regarding common name[edit]

For standardization, I have been moving WP mammal articles to correspond with the the common name used by MSW3 (Meles meles), which is the most used source used by Wikipedia: WikiProject Mammals. Another source extensively used throughout WP is IUCN (Meles meles). For this species, MSW3 list no alternate name for Meles meles, only "European Badger". However, IUCN lists "Eurasian Badger" as the common name. For standardization, I am proposing using the MSW3 common name of "European Badger", although I have no qualms about abandoning that preference if either MSW3 is incorrect or if common usage has changed since the last edition of MSW. As per an above post, another editor has expressed disagreement with this, so I have opened an RfC. --Tombstone (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The MSW3 name would be a good one to use – if it were not clearly wrong. The species occurs from Western Europe to China. The use of "European badger" for the species leads to "the European badger is native to China" and similar nonsense. The use of "European" for a Eurasian species is surely Anglo-centricism (see WP:BIAS), and I cannot see how it is justified.
While MSW3 is a good starting point for a common English name, we are not obliged to use it, and the IUCN is a perfectly good alternative source. "Eurasian" is also more likely to align with wikis in other languages. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the species occurs in a considerable part of Asia, "Eurasian Badger " should most likely be preferred if "European Badger" is not much more widely used in scientific sources. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar finds ~1440 hits for "European Badger" and ~790 for "Eurasian Badger". - UtherSRG (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MSW3 says this about the common names selected: "Unlike previous editions, we have provided a common name for each recognized species. The starting point for these names is Wilson and Cole (2000), but each author was encouraged to examine those names and to provide a different one if there was good reason to do so. Thus, this list can be viewed as a second edition of Wilson and Cole (2000). There are no rules governing vernacular names, but Wilson and Cole (2000) outlined several reasons for adopting a single such name for each species of mammal." It is obvious that mammalogists are still refining the list. While we are not obligated to use MSW3 for common names, we should consider them as more official than any other listing of common names for mammals. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
imo, MSW3 is a good standard, but they're off on this one. i seriously think there should be a wait-and-see position taken on this; "Eurasian" is simply the most factually accurate description when taking into consideration the range of these species, whatever the Bible for Mammals might say at this moment in time. i also think that Richard (above) has a practical when considering other wiki projects. - Μετανοιδ (talk, email) 03:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this discussion is caused at least partly by conflicting taxonomies: the Red List (as often) uses an outdated classification which recognises a single species in the genus Meles, for which "Eurasian badger" is an appropriate name. MSW 3, on the other hand, follows Abramov's recent reclassification of the genus Meles into three species, also recognising the Asian (M. leucurus) and Japanese (M. anakuma) badgers. The ranges of the European and Asian species meet at the Volga in Russia. I do not see any problems with the use of MSW 3 common names: European badger for the endemic European species Meles meles, Asian badger for an Asian species (Meles leucurus) that marginally reaches Europe, and Japanese badger for an insular species from the periphery of the Asian continent (Meles anakuma).
Therefore, our decision on the name we use should rest on the classification we adopt: if we recognise a single species, "Eurasian badger" is appropriate, but if we recognise three species, Meles meles should be the "European badger" (and articles should be created for the two others). I believe the second option is in agreement with the current consensus among mammalogists, so I support the use of European badger. Ucucha 14:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ucucha's explanation and analysis are well made (and it just shows how important it is to read the source properly...). This only leaves one relatively minor problem: MSW3 does list the "European" badger as occurring in parts of Asia, and therefore not as exclusively European. However, looking at the listed distributions it is fair to say that of the three the European badger is mainly European, extending to nearby parts of Asia: Israel, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and finally the Xinjiang part of China. Essentially we would be saying that the badger species in Xinjiang is the otherwise European one, in contrast to the Asian badger (Meles leucurus) in other parts of China. So I agree with Ucucha: either we have one Meles species and call it Eurasian badger, or we have three and call one European badger – on balance I favour the three-species interpretation. Richard New Forest (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but my analysis was apparently not so well-made, since I overlooked the fact that M. meles does actually occur outside Europe: its range extends into the Middle East and through the mountains of Iran and Kyrgyzstan even into China. That does not change my opinion, however, since this is a marginal part of the range.
Furthermore, it is an illusion that species names are ever going to be completely "correct", since anomalies occur and the borders of geographic ranges rarely reflect the rigid geographic regions humans use. It is, as in this case, often useful to distinguish between "European" (western) and "Asian" (eastern) species among Eurasian mammals, but I do not think there are any cases where the borders of those species coincide exactly with the accepted boundary between Europe and Asia. In this case, there is a reasonably good correspondence between the ranges of the two species and the borders of Europe and Asia; the Asian range of the European species is relatively minor. This, together with the fact that there are good sources for the use of "European badger", leads to the conclusion that this is the name that should be used. Ucucha 16:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for explaining that. buying the line of reasoning and taxonomic changes accepted in the MSW3, then, i have no problem with the European moniker. - Μετανοιδ (talk, email) 18:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery: New images, artificial setting.[edit]

I have added 4 images of Eurasian Badger. Three of them are in an unnatural setting. I felt the article would benefit from more images in the gallery, however if it is felt that only 'natural environment' images are appropriate then please remove the three with concrete tile background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prosthetic Head (talk • contribs) 00:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biblio[edit]

Heptner, V. G.; Sludskii, A. A. (2002). Mammals of the Soviet Union. Vol. II, part 1b, Carnivores(Mustelidae). Washington, D.C. : Smithsonian Institution Libraries and National Science Foundation. ISBN 90-04-08876-8. - link is dead. BTW - Mustelidae?! 91.215.34.42 (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization mismatch[edit]

Japanese wiki looks like this:

  • Meles meles (species) (Japanese: "anaguma")
    • Meles meles anakuma (subspecies) (japanese badger)
    • Meles meles leucurus (subspecies) (asian badger)
    • Meles meles meles (subspecies) (european badger)

English wiki looks like this:

  • Meles (genus) (Japanese: "anaguma")
    • Meles anakuma (species) (japanese badger)
    • Meles leucurus (species) (asian badger)
    • Meles meles (species) (european badger)
      • Meles meles meles (subspecies) (Common badger)
      • Meles meles arcalus (subspecies)
      • Meles meles canascens (subspecies)
      • Meles meles heptneri (subspecies)
      • Meles meles marianensis (subspecies)
      • Meles meles milleri (subspecies)
      • Meles meles rhodius (subspecies)
      • Meles meles severzovi (subspecies)

Let's fix the inconsistency. --JBrown23 (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Digitigrade vs. Plantigrade[edit]

It's claimed here that they're digitigrade, but all other sources I found say badgers, at least in general, are plantigrade - the pictures shown here certainly seem to confirm the European badger is no exception. Am I missing something, or does this need correction? 2602:301:7736:56B0:9CC4:2E2C:2BB4:4B5A (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We tend to see them only in (for them) unusual circumstances, e.g. when crossing the road. A martian who only happens to see you when you're going on tippy-toe might well draw the wrong conclusion!137.205.100.231 (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even the scientific literature is a little inconsistent about this. I have added a couple of references to the article. DrChrissy (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on European badger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on European badger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on European badger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recognize vs. recognise[edit]

According to WP's spelling standards British vs American English, etc. on the Wikipedia:Typo Team team, both versions of recognize/recognise are correct. Since the European badger is native to Europe (and some part of Asia) I believe that it should be spelled "recognise" since it would be more likely that this particular page is more relevant to Europeans than Americans.

It was not a "rouge" (sic) editor that tried to make the word more British, I believe the article may have been written by a European who was more apt to use the British spellings, although it's entirely possible the word was changed along the way. At any rate, either word is correct. Coryphantha (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TB spread[edit]

Scientifically proven that badgers do not transmit tuberculosis to cattle 70.66.60.126 (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Do you have a reference you can cite? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pet section[edit]

I think the section about badgers making good pets is biased and misleading, and they are classed as not recommended or ‘exotic’ pets by many pet insurers. 2A01:4B00:F627:5B00:8C38:61E8:99ED:FB14 (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I marked the source as dubious. The entire section is based on a single source from 1898 that discusses two or three anecdotes of badgers as pets, along with their supposed behaviour (e.g. loving pork, hating cats).-- Ponyobons mots 23:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_badger&oldid=1194310685"